Sure, sure... I understand. Only some numbers are your friends. But some are bad! BAD numbers! Keep those bad numbers away!

Exactly uberjoe. Which is why I'm dropping out of this ludicrous argument. Park with short porches down the line and huge centerfields for double and triples not being pitchers parks?! Whatever.

It's obvious that his way of winning an argument is "You're evidence is invalid becuase it proves me wrong and mine is valid because it proves me rights." There's no way to argue against that. So I'll leave him to his little la-la land.

Yeah, can't argue logically with the illogical. So I'm gonna back out, too, but I might drop in every now and then to make fun of something stupid...

C-man never got the chance to see one happen -- the rest home wouldn't let him out to see a game.

You should put as much faith in these numbers as you do in the numbers for home run distance.

Can you expound on why I should?

If you're interested in rejoining the conversation, I really would like to know what makes very deep centerfield dimensions hitter-friendly (I assume this is what you meant to say)?


Click for larger image.
Yankee Stadium I (1923-1936) --- Busch Stadium (current) --- Pacific Bell Park (current)
1927 American League avg.*............................1998 National League avg.*
339 LF, 406 LC, 459 C, 385 RC, 328 RF............................332 LF, 373 LC, 404 C, 374 RC, 332 RF
* - Based upon nearest possible estimate.

No. I've geiven up on talking to you. You're too delusional to reason with.

That's your prerogative.

It's obvious why a deep centerfield is more friendly to hitters (not discussing Right and Left dimensions here). If centerfield is deep the fielder has more area to cover therefore there is a much greater chance of the ball finding a hole.

I'm not sure how you can say otherwise since earlier you were argueing about how much harder it was "back in the day" to get a hit since the area outside the foul line was that much bigger. Pick one arguement and stick with it please

Mordred

See, I thought (based on my statment), that it was obvious. Thanks for confirming it ain't just me Mordred.

Er, but at least those cavernous dimensions permitted the fielders to possibly make a play on them. Anything hit that deep today is a guaranteed HR.

That is true... so the number of homeruns goes down a little but the number of bloop singles and doubles... or triples which roll to the wall goes up, thus inflating batting averages. What exactly are you trying to argue by this?

Mordred

A point which should be obvious; which is that, the deeper the outfield dimensions, the more pitcher-friendly, and the less hitter-friendly, a ballpark is.

I have already pointed out in another thread that, were you to superimpose just the centerfield and left-centerfield dimensions onto Pac Bell, you can see that 10 of Bonds' HR come way short of clearing the fence. Again, this concerns just C and LC (to say nothing of the other HRs he would've lost to other of Yankee Stadium's imposing regions), and only those he hit at home. Don't you think that those pitchers who were victimized by Bonds would've loved for the park to have that extra 90-100 ft. for their outfielders to track down his deep blasts?

Cursory research reveals that players in Ruth's day lost tons of home runs because of this extra territory. His 475-ft. moon shot to the Polo Grounds' cavernous centerfield in the '21 Series was caught by fleet Giants ballhawk Bill Cunningham after circling the Eddie Grant Memorial in front of the clubhouse. Ty Cobb snared another of the Babe's towering blasts in 1924, at the 500 ft. mark in Yankee Stadium's Death Valley. Lou Gehrig lost a sure 5th home run for the 1932 day when Al Simmons tracked down his 468-ft. liner at Shibe Park's centerfield flagpole. Hank Greenberg was victimized by what he called a catch better than the famous Willie Mays highlight, when Joe DiMaggio picked off his 450-ft. screamer past Yankee Stadium's centerfield flagpole. These are less than a handful of the examples which are yielded by examining old-time box-scores. On the contrary, 400 ft. of travel will nearly always tally today's slugger with an easy trot around the bases.

Yes, doubles were turned into triples, and triples became in-the-park HRs (however, I could argue that Astroturf wreaks the same effect today); but easy HRs were downgraded to triples, doubles, and, frequently, outs, by the cavernous dimensions of yore ("The Polo Grounds giveth, and the Polo Grounds taketh away" was a common saying of the time).

Also, something else which needs consideration is the fact that old-time outfielders generally did not play as deep as they do now, so the gaps were not as yawing as one might think. As with Andruw Jones today, prevailing outfield theory then held that more balls fell in front of outfielders than behind; so outfielders who could break with the crack of the bat, turn, at race at breakneck speed with their backs to the plate to haul down drives headed for the fence, were at a premium. Even in the '20s, it was not like it is today, where the ball is so lively and everything is so geared for slugging that the outfielders feel (wrongly, I'm persuaded) compelled to plant a few yards in front of the fence.

In sum (combined with the immense foul territory which further aided pitchers), these significantly deeper dimensions did little, if anything, to boost batting average (and were certainly a huge detriment to HRs). Whatever extra bases were granted by the deep confines were more than compensated by the additional chances they provided fielders.

Because they have just about the same chance of being right. 0.

Edt: Except for the baseball throw one. That one should be pretty easy to get right.

How do you figure?

Common sense. Too prone to human error and judgement.

Not addressed to me, but I'd like to offer an answer. My feeling is that parks with very deep fields offer the opportunity for more hits because fielders can't cover the entire space as well as they would in a smaller park. This is especially true for parks with deep centerfields, because centerfield-sizes affect the sizes of both left and rightfields.

Ah, but unlike the MCI HR-distance figures (which are determined in-game by an observer sitting behind, and above, home plate, with only a flat diagram of the park's configurations, a guess as to the ball's trajectory, and a computer algebraic program which provides a rough estimate), the physical achievements listed were recorded under controlled circumstances.

Baseball feats of this nature were once on display (usually on the last day of the season) in professional ballparks across America in what were called "Field Day" competitions. Contestants, either local or from All-Star confluents, fought for top prizes in such competitions as the baseball throw; sprint to first, around the bags, or 100-yd. dash; and the fungo-hitting contest (now usurped by the Home Run Derby). Winners received bonuses and gifts.

For a detailed view of how such proceedings were held, I provide this description of Honus Wagner's 10/16/1898 successful attempt at breaking the 26-yr. old record for distance throw by a position player:

--Honus Wagner: A Biography, by Dennis DeValeria & Jeanne Burke DeValeria (1995).

For those who doubt the authenticity of these feats, I suggest you check out the following links (a couple of my dates were a little off originally):
8/4/01 - "Ginger" Beaumont's record time to first (3.0 secs).
9/15/29 - Evar Swanson's record time to round the bases (13.2 secs.).
8/1/57 - Glen Gorbous' record distance for baseball throw (445'10").
7/31/29 - Babe Ruth's record distance for fungo (447').

Like I said, the baseball throw was probably right. However if you think that they can get accurate timings of a person running down the line using the time measurement equipment that they had in 1901, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Again, though, it also provides opportunity for greater chance of being caught by the fielders for an out, because they aren't stopped in their pursuit of a ball by a short fence (as we so often see today).

I would argue first of all that there is a sweet spot inherent in ballpark design... too small and every pop fly is out of the park. Too large and everything falls in the park and nobody can get to anything.

The best design is somewhere in the middle. Think for a minute, what the biggest ballpark in the NL is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's Colorado's. Look at who lead the majors this year in batting:

Larry Walker with .350
Todd Helton finished second in NL with .336

2000: Todd Helton with .372
1999: Larry Walker .379
1998: Larry Walker .363
1993: Andres Gallaragga .370

Try and tell me that Colorado's large outfield isn't inflating their BA just a tad? Yes I know the ball carries forever and a lot of homeruns are scored... but still there's a LOT of room to land in.

Besides, take away 10 of Bonds' home runs and he still has 63... which seems to be 3 better than Ruth

Mordred

It may interest you to know that they had graduated from hourglasses up to stopwatches which could calculate up to a tenth of a second by 1901.

True, but the fielders have to go farther in every direction. How often do we see an outfielder play short, then have a ball hit over his head? What if he does that, and has to run 100 extra feet to get to the ball, then throw it back in? That's a lot of time for a baserunner to be moving.

And who is starting the stopwatches? Do they have precision tools to start time exactly when he takes off and stop exactly when he reaches base?

I see you graduated from the classicman school of debating, where statistics presented by others are either inaccurate or irrelevant and statistics present by you are 100% accurate and the sole voice of reason . Theres a difference between you and him though. He says it all with tongue-in-cheek. You actually believe it. Oh well. Think whatever you want. I'm through with you.